New Internal DOJ Guidance on Compensating Victims and Coordinating Corporate Penalties in Parallel Proceedings

On June 5, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) directed prosecutors to prioritize compensating victims when resolving multiagency investigations involving corporate defendants. DOJ Criminal Division Chief Matthew R. Galeotti issued an internal memo (the “June 5 memo”) guiding prosecutors “to seek to maximize recoveries for, and assistance to, victims of crime” when deciding how to credit payments made to other agencies to resolve parallel investigations involving US and/or foreign authorities.

In resolving multiagency investigations, DOJ frequently credits payments that corporate defendants make to other US and/or foreign authorities against amounts owed to DOJ. The purpose of this is to avoid the so-called piling on of penalties for corporate defendants, which was a focus of DOJ during the first Trump Administration. Indeed, the Justice Manual, which sets forth internal DOJ policies and procedures, includes provisions directing prosecutors to avoid duplicative fines, penalties, or forfeitures.¹

While the June 5 memo does not directly contradict existing DOJ policies and procedures, it adds a layer of complexity in resolving multiagency investigations and could raise the possibility that DOJ will provide less crediting to companies in an effort to increase both specific and general victim compensation. The June 5 memo states that prosecutors working to resolve parallel investigations must assess how victims are compensated pursuant to resolutions involving other authorities when deciding whether to credit those settlements against DOJ’s settlement amounts, and, among other things, prosecutors are instructed to avoid reducing criminal penalties that would otherwise be used for general victim support against penalties imposed by domestic authorities that will not similarly be used to support victims.

The June 5 memo encourages prosecutors to maximize victim compensation, with a priority for direct compensation to victims, including through restitution, remission, restoration, and direct compensations from the company, as applicable, pursuant to guilty pleas, deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”), non-prosecution agreements (“NPAs”), or declinations under the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”).

With respect to making an appropriate crediting decision, the June 5 memo provides separate advice for coordination with domestic authorities and with foreign authorities.

Payments Made to Domestic Authorities

The memo directs Criminal Division prosecutors, when determining whether to credit payments a company makes to other domestic authorities in a coordinated resolution of a parallel investigation, to ensure that recoveries from other authorities can be used to compensate the victims of the underlying crime or can be used to generally support victims of crime. The June 5 memo states that Criminal Division prosecutors should follow two principles in this area.

First, prosecutors should prioritize compensation to victims of the underlying crime who have compensable losses. Prosecutors should therefore not credit penalties imposed by other domestic authorities by forgoing forms of resolution that could be used to compensate such victims (e.g., restitution or forfeiture that could be used for remission to compensate victims) unless other authorities have an effective mechanism to compensate victims of the underlying crime.

Second, prosecutors “generally” should not credit penalties imposed by other domestic authorities and forgo penalties that would otherwise be used for general victim support through DOJ mechanisms, such as the Crime Victims Fund² (“CVF”), unless those other authorities use their penalties to support victims through similar mechanisms.

Payments Made to Foreign Authorities

When prosecutors are determining whether to credit payments a company makes to foreign authorities against amounts owed to DOJ in a coordinated resolution, the June 5 memo differentiates between payments that could be used to compensate victims of the underlying crime and payments intended to provide general victim assistance through the CVF.

Where there are victims of the underlying crime with compensable losses, prosecutors should not credit payments to foreign authorities that may be used to compensate victims of the underlying crime unless that foreign authority has a more effective mechanism than DOJ for directly compensating these victims.

When, however, prosecutors are considering reducing the amount of criminal penalties to be paid to the US (through crediting) and used for general victim assistance through deposit in the CVF, prosecutors can only consider crediting such payments by balancing:

1. the interest in providing general assistance to victims of crime through such deposits;
2. the interests of jurisdictions where the misconduct occurred, where the effects of the misconduct are most acutely felt, or that have other equities in the investigations; and
3. the advancement of other critical DOJ and Criminal Division goals.

Finally, the June 5 memo provides the following set of non-exhaustive factors to balance direct victim compensation and assistance to victims through the CVF when making crediting decisions:

1. the degree of overlap in the conduct under investigation in the parallel matters by the various authorities;
2. the equities of the investigating and prosecuting authorities involved, including how the case originated, which authorities developed key evidence, and the investigative and prosecutorial resources expended by the respective authorities;
3. where the misconduct occurred, where and how the effects of the misconduct are felt, and the seriousness of the harm;
4. the relative level and value of cooperation provided by other authorities;
5. the timeliness and genuine efforts of the company in seeking and advancing a coordinated resolution;
6. the anticipated timing of the respective resolutions; and
7. general enforcement practices and priorities of DOJ.

Analysis

The June 5 memo does not directly contradict existing guidance in the Justice Manual, but it does add nuance to DOJ’s previous emphasis on avoiding disproportionate penalties on companies that are subject to investigations for the same misconduct by multiple authorities. On May 9, 2018, DOJ announced its Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties (the “anti-piling on policy”), which was incorporated in Section 12.100 of the Justice Manual. The announcement of this policy emphasized consideration of all penalties, fines, and forfeitures imposed by multiple authorities for the same misconduct “in an effort to achieve an equitable result.”

While the anti-piling on policy is referenced in the background section of the June 5 memo, the June 5 memo does not explain how to balance the requirements of the anti-piling on policy, which has not been rescinded, against the requirements of the June 5 memo. The June 5 memo’s discussion of crediting decisions does make clear that prosecutors must avoid crediting penalties as duplicative where victim compensation would be affected. The June 5 memo limits the ability of Criminal Division prosecutors to credit payments made by companies to other domestic and foreign authorities and lists a significant number of interests prosecutors must balance when considering a credit for a payment made to a different authority.

As a result, the total amount companies will be required to pay in coordinated resolutions involving the Criminal Division may increase as companies lose opportunities to credit their payments to other authorities. Additionally, attempts to negotiate lower settlement figures with DOJ through credits earned through payments to other authorities may be complicated, and thus likely lengthened, by the additional interest balancing prosecutors will be required to conduct.

Finally, the memo also makes clear that companies are responsible for notifying DOJ of parallel investigations and their resolutions, and Criminal Division prosecutors will not credit payments to other authorities when a company does not “meaningfully attempt to coordinate resolutions.” This provides a clear message to companies of the need to have coordinated strategies and responses in parallel investigations involving multiple authorities.

Footnotes

1. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 1-12.100 (2018).

2. The CVF is a fund administered by DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime and designed to compensate victims of violations of US criminal law.